Former choir director’s wife: It’s about the sound, not the church
Dear Editor,
The wording in some of the articles and letters to the editor over the past month may have been somewhat misleading to those in the community and beyond that are unfamiliar with the award-winning public high school choir program in Gilroy and/or may not have attended one of their concerts in a local church, most recently St. Mary Parish Church in Gilroy and the Mission in San Juan Bautista.
For clarity – the Gilroy High School choirs and Christopher High School choirs have not and do not want to perform “in churches”. They do not want to hold a concert during any church function or during a worship service! The GHS and CHS choirs simply want the option to “use a church building” for a choir concert on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday evening because that venue may be far superior to any other building available in the area for that particular concert music.
Choral concert venues are chosen for acoustics, logistics required for a positive interaction between the choir performers and their audience, adequate seating capacity and parking logistics. Many church buildings are not good choral concert venues because those buildings were not built to support choral music. Some local churches are large multipurpose rooms built for microphone use only and would never be considered for quality choral performances.
Setting up a concert venue in a church facility does not involve, consult or confirm in any way the church’s religious views or their doctrine or their moral standards. In fact, holding a concert “in a church facility” does not even involve church staff, except to ask simple permission to be put on a master calendar and to have the building unlocked/locked, lights turned on/off, etc. Church staff are not seen or heard from during a concert. It is a huge stretch to imply and conclude that a public school choir performing in a church must be banned when the choir is simply “using the building as a quality performance venue”.
When using a church building as a concert venue, the “Establishment Clause” is certainly being honored and that is all the U.S. Constitution requires. Religion is not being “established” when a choir is simply borrowing a superior local church building for a performance.
We can look to our 4th grade state curriculum for a logical precedent. All 4th graders are required to study, visit and construct a California Mission. (Did you know that the Mission at San Juan Bautista is also labeled a California State Park?) Obviously, this wonderful 4th grade activity does not in any way establish the Catholic religion nor does it pressure any 4th grader or their family towards or into a religion; therefore, using the Mission at San Juan Bautista as a concert venue does not “establish” a religion.
There are many examples of high-quality choral programs in California using church facilities as their concert venues. The San Jose State University Choraliers & Concert Choir held their Fall Concert in the Campbell United Methodist Church on Oct. 18, 2013. The Palo Alto High School Choral Program’s Fall Concert was held in Grace Lutheran Church in Palo Alto on Oct. 13, 2013 and the Palo Alto Concert Choir participated in an evening of meditative music at the Stanford Memorial Chapel on Oct. 6, 2013. Both San Jose State University and Palo Alto High School have more than adequate concert venues on their campuses.
Sadly, the GUSD School Board is acting out of fear and political correctness. They also are lacking the information needed to make such a decision. All school board members should do the required homework, debate the issue among themselves, debate it publicly, listen to the community and publish a written position statement. The community deserves elected school board members that are fully educated, logical, fair, honest and confident.
Pam Robb, Gilroy
Polls positive for Quality of Life tax – well of course – they’re rigged
Dear Editor,
After reading the front page article from Nov. 1, I can’t help but question the header “Polls Positive for Quality of Life Tax”. I have been at all the city council meetings regarding this issue and I am appalled that consultant Catherine Lew considers 400 responses (less than 1% of Gilroy’s population) a good sampling.
I also want to know who was surveyed? Was it residents that actually PAY taxes and are the responses from property owners or renters?
Do these people realize that if the 1% sales tax passes, increasing Gilroy’s sales tax will move from 8.75% to 9.25% and impact them on everything purchased?
The median income is lower in Gilroy than Morgan Hill and most of Santa Clara County, where the sales tax remains 8.75%. Having been an analyst during my working years, the type of questions asked and how the questions are asked can direct the results in whatever outcome you are seeking.
The article says future polling will take place with public meetings and workshops. Word of caution … nobody shows up! Ask Mayor Steve Tate from Morgan Hill, who has consultants on the Morgan Hill 2035 plan trying this. I’ve attended the workshops and number of resident are never greater than 50.
Now, into survey responses. The article states that 79% say police protection is very-extremely important and top spending priorities should revolve around public safety. How does $17,000,000 spent on a sports park, high school stadium, arts and culture and a $10,000,000 water park translate to a public safety. How does what started as a $30,000,000 bond double at the July 1, 2013 city council meeting?
In fact, NO police/fire was mentioned at that meeting. Besides the four items mentioned above, add improving neighborhood parks ($5,000,000), downtown URM building ($3,000,000), civic center parking garage ($5,7000,000), sidewalk repair ($8,000,000) and communication infrastructure ($4,500,000).
After reviewing the survey results, available on the city website, the 400 responders said these above potential uses for revenue rate 30% or less as extremely/very important. I am not in support of increasing taxes, since I believe there will be a lot more county, state and federal taxes in our near future, but, at least, if you want to take our money … please be honest with where and how the money will be spent and do accurate research or don’t waste the $100,000 – $150,000 paid to the Lew Edwards Group to research this!
Susan Mister, Gilroy
Survey about burdening Gilroy with another tax clearly ‘highly misleading’
Dear Editor,
The Nov. 1 article about the upcoming attempt at a TAX HIKE makes me wonder if the Council paid (wasted) over $54,000 to a consulting firm just to be told what they wanted to hear.
The Council should reveal the poll questions so we the people can see how ridiculous they were. It is common knowledge that property taxes are unfair and more unpopular than sales taxes, yet the poll says that more respondents favored the property tax, which was highly misleading using the term “general obligation bond.” Then they apparently asked people about the fire and already-overstaffed police department “services” and good ol’ “public safety.”
As a statistician who has designed surveys and experiments for more than 20 years, this tells me that the poll was worded to inflate positive results, giving to Council an excuse to put this stupid TAX HIKE on the ballot as well as justify wasting $54,000. Although for over four decades we have been working harder for less, for five straight years we have experienced (1) a rise in the cost of living rate not seen since the inflation of the late 1970s and (2) an overall decline in wages, a pair of events that have not combined since the Great Depression.
And every public agency, whose employees (we won’t say “workers”) get pensions and benefits unseen in the private sector for more than 10 years, is trying to reach into our pockets for even more. Six Council members call this a Quality Of Life tax – to improve the quality of the lives of their chosen few at the expense of the middle class (homeowners). I think the quality of OUR lives would be better with less of THEM (government).
We should start a radical (meaning grassroots, but I still honor the term) Quality Of Life Referendum that cuts property taxes in half and downsizes government by 50%. Now THAT would be true quality!
Alan Viarengo, Gilroy
Exempt from Obamacare … just Congress and the rest of the elite class
Dear Editor,
Should one group of Americans receive an exemption from the higher premiums, mandates penalties, and taxes caused by the requirements of Obamacare? Obamacare was passed through secret deals and exemptions promised to certain groups.
Ironically, those who made this law exempted themselves. Obama, congress, and their staffers all received special exemptions. Obamacare also provides “hardship exemptions” for American Indians, Armish, Christian Scientists, and Muslims.
Also, over 1,000 businesses and 315 unions have also received exemptions from Obamacare. Why should 3% of America get an exemption from Obamacare, while the rest of America must abide by the requirements, regulations, penalties, fines, and taxes created? Obamacare hurts more individuals and families than it helps and hires 16,000 new IRS agents. Shouldn’t it hire 16,000 new doctors instead?
Frank Aquila, Manteca
